Tag: Pro-Choice

I just saw this picture shared on Facebook…

What does it mean to be pro-life?

I responded by saying that, to be pro-life means to seek to end the killing of children in the womb because it is intrinsically wrong to kill the most defenseless, innocent human beings. Even IF the above caricature were true (which I would vigorously argue against), that doesn’t change one iota the morality of abortion.

What about a broader definition?

In response to this, one of my friends wrote that he thought “pro-life” has a wider definition. I said that he could broaden the term if he wanted, but the genesis of that term comes from the movement which was focused upon ending the killing of those in the womb. That is the stated goal of the pro-life movement. 

I think this broadening of the term has been chiefly attempted by those who want to keep abortion legal and wish to discredit those who want to see it end. The argument is “You don’t get to ban abortion until an unspecified list of social programmes have been implemented to my satisfaction”. The beauty of this argument is, of course, it can never be satisfied…

The logic of the argument itself is nonsense anyway. Would someone object to me protecting a toddler from being killed by her mother because I don’t also support a programme for free after school babysitting? Of course not – a child’s life is at stake! So, if you don’t think that logic stands up when a toddler is involved, why would it stand up with a child still in the womb?

When Christians do it…

Now, I’m aware that some Christians also try to broaden the definition of pro-life. I’m sure they have good intentions and I have some sympathy with this attempt. However, I find that when this broadening happens, the term “pro-life” effectively becomes meaningless. When you broaden its meaning to cover everything related to human justice and flourishing, it basically ends up encompassing all morality! I mean, what moral choices would it not concern? At this point, “pro-life” simply means “moral”, and we already had a word for that…moral. All we’ve managed to achieve is to empty the term “pro-life” of its meaning.

When the argument changes…

I’ve spoken to many pro-choice advocates who have begun the conversation using an argument that we should provide comprehensive social programmes for the poor before we even consider arguing against abortion. However, I’ve noticed something often happens after continued conversation and the pointing out logical flaws with this approach. After a while, their argument degredates to something like this:

“My body, my choice”? “Abortion on demand, no apologies”? I would suggest that this shows that their objection to the pro-life movement has little to with care for the poor.

I see something similar when a pro-choice advocate wants to talk about abortion in the case of rape. Rape is presented as the reason we need abortion, although after further questioning it is revealed that they think abortion should be made available regardless of whether someone was raped.

The reason behind all this is that they see the the ability for a mother to kill her unborn child as a fundamental right. I would ask, if this is the case, wouldn’t it be more straight-forward to state that up front?